IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant

Status
Not open for further replies.
dailydriver - not my area of expertise, but the mechanism is rather different for this stuff than "oil". It takes place at the atomic or molecular bonding level of pretty small particles to make a film that is probably thinner, certainly more effective, than the relatively huge molecules of slippery polymers et al. If I remember from very long ago, high VI says "sticky". IF WS2 don't need no stinking sticky.

If it was not so expensive I would try some in my two cars (plebeian old guys transportation) a 90 Honda and a 1999 Audi. And my tractor.
 
I believe that Millers uses a VERY high content group 4/5 base stock, with the resultant naturally high VI, (as far as BASE STOCKS go), and also the resultant high polarity of that type of base stock.

The NANO part ONLY comes in for their add pack/AW compounds.
THIS is why I was asking if their add pack AW compound could be these IF WS2s.
 
I got an email back from Ran-Up additive about IF WS2. They have no idea what is in the product. They are probably a smallish middle man which seems quite common in the Asian market.
 
I have some large particle WS2. I need to make up a small amount for small household lubrication. My thought was to use 99% alcohol but some other non-residual solvent with no water in it seems like a good idea for this. Any suggestions for a solvent. It needs to evaporate quickly and not attack things like paint and plastic. No residue.
 
In looking for a carrier for the WS2 I have been calling it a solvent. It is obviously a carrier. Sorry for the lack of rigor.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: dailydriver


Sadly, from what I remember you had told me during our phone conversation, many on here will BLAST/DISS the engine oils for having a low VI, even though they are made for RACING, and labelled as such.
Some on here feel that the VI spec is the be all, end all of ANY premium synthetic oil, EVEN racing oils, especially in this price range, and they even have me half convinced about this.
frown.gif



I'm no longer buying into the "VI spec" as the "be all, end all" either.

I think that a high vi matters at start up. Once the oil is up to operating temp it becomes much less of a factor.
Jmo.
I've got millers fb page and get updates on my wall. The nano tech stuff is absolutely amazing. It's not even attainable in canada yet. I tried.
 
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
^^^Yes, I am seriously considering trying their 0W-30 Nanodrive oil in the spring/summer, DESPITE it's relatively low V.I.!!
wink.gif



This is a fairly new oil, so if you ask Blackstones they might do a free VOA for you, as that would be interesting to see, along with your VOA.
 
Originally Posted By: skyship
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
^^^Yes, I am seriously considering trying their 0W-30 Nanodrive oil in the spring/summer, DESPITE it's relatively low V.I.!!
wink.gif



This is a fairly new oil, so if you ask Blackstones they might do a free VOA for you, as that would be interesting to see, along with your VOA.


The company is called Blackstone. And in the past they have helped the bitog community add to the knowledge base,so it might be a possibility they contribute again.
 
If you get an oil analysis, I would be very interested in the presence of Tungsten. Given the text of some of their literature; if it has Tungsten, it is very likely to be the IF WS2.

I sent a message a couple of days ago asking if there was any information on consumer versions of the nano.
 
Gents (and ladies if present),

I apologize for not following this thread as much as I should have. Just been a very busy time of the year, etc. and all of that. Can't comment specifically on some of the things mentioned here, as it gets into proprietary stuff, I apologize for that.

But I do have some good news to address some concerns raised here. First, Millers just introduced their first four road oil products wtih nanotechnology. Two 5W30 fully synthetics, a 10W40 semi, and a 75W90 gear oil. Pricing is not as cheap as Mobil 1 at Wal-Mart, but it is notably less than our race oils. All that said, on the race oils, the stuff lasts a very long time. Not sure how the road oil stuff will last, it is a Longlife formulation (the fully synthetics), but the race oil lasts much, much longer than most of the stuff out there. Two anecdotal points. We did a longevity study on one of our race cars, which we have published on our website, but basically, 5 race weekends, about 1700 race miles, in the season, and had analyses done after every weekend. The only thing after the full season that was even a blip was the aluminum content at 17ppm (normal is 15 or under). The other anecdotal point was the Director of Technology at Millers who runs 20,000 mile drain intervals on his diesel Jag.

We have used both Blackstone and Polaris for VOA and UOA. We have an agreement with Polaris for two reasons - one, frankly, they offered us a better package, but second, we've seen more of the strange outliers from Blackstone than Polaris. On the above mentioned longevity study, we sent the samples to England where they also did an HFRR test (the NT's greatest benefit is reduction in boundary condition friction, which the HFRR test measures better than more commonly used tests). I'll see if I can dig up some VOA from either Blackstone or Polaris.

Also, there is a dealer in Canada, specifically in Ontario, and we are very close to adding a second in Vancouver, BC. The one in Ontario is Gabriel Maintenance, Ltd.

Also, we are going to be placing an order for either several pallets or a container here within the week. If anyone is interested in something other than our race oil, please get in touch with me, and we can make sure we have it brought over.
 
King, could you perhaps list MSRP here?

I guess my question at this point is race or not race. Do you have any info on the nano action on the two oils. Sure wish they had done a 10W40 or 5W40 full synthetics. I think my Audi specs 5W50, but I usually don't use that. An additive would be slick (sorry).

The major activity I am looking for is the lubricity and surface protection/build up of the nano component. Are the proportions the same for both road and racing? Are there other details of the oil blends that favor the road in domestic engines vs racing oil?
 
Last edited:
I think I would wait for a motor oil to come out with this stuff in it, assuming a motor oil ever does come out with it. It might be too expensive as a lubricate except for special purposes. If the stuff improves fuel mileage by 5% but if it costs too much money it simply would not be worth it.

There may be some special racing oils already using it and that racing would be used for testing also.
 
My post was quite thread specific. A few posts above the distributor (67King) announces the motor oil products to supplement the existing racing oils.
 
Mystic - Millers does indeed use nanotechnology in their engine oils. Will not elaborate on the chemical specifics of it beyond that.

Real quick:
IMEP - Indicated Mean Effective Pressure, which is how much torque the engine makes before mechanical losses (normalized - i.e. not a function of displacement)
FMEP - Fricton Mean Effective Pressure, said mechanical losses
BMEP - Brake Mean Effective Pressure, IMEP - FMEP. Multiplied by displacement, and you get brake torque.

The technology has reduced the coefficient of friction in the neighborhood of 50%, give or take a fair amount (range 30% to upper 60's, off of memory). The benefit it provides is primarily in boundary lubrication. That primarily is near TDS and BDC in the swept area of the rings. If you figure FMEP of an engine is about 15% IMEP, and ring friction is 40% of that, then you are looking at 6%, max. But, it does not take long before you start getting out of boundary, and into viscous, at which point the coefficient of friction doens't do much for you.

So how does this impact fuel economy? To date, we do not have enough direct data. A few Sequence Six tests have been performed, and it is largely dependent on drive cycle (frictional losses are a constant, so at low load, they are a large portion of indicated power). I know the results, but the sample size is too small to publish with any confidence. That said, we are awaiting the impending release of fleet oils with NT. If we can make an improvement of merely 1%, the case for conversion to the NT oils is very, very strong at first glance. We are hoping to have some discussions in the near future with some fleet operators to get some level of validity around our assumptions of operating costs. A 5% improvement in fuel economy would be enormous, but it isn't realistic. OEM's would pay BIG time money for that kind of fuel economy improvement (see below for some more info).

However, the horsepower improvements that have been measured are pretty darn impressive. And since the same mechanisms apply, we do have confidence that a measurable improvement in fuel economy will be realized. Most testing has shown a 2-3% improvement in power, with a range of about 1% to 5%, but I personally question the assumptions made when that 5% was measured (measured wheel power improvement was 2.3%, which I trust). Basically, they attempt to measure driveline losses by cutting fuel and letting the dyno wind down while taking measurements. Those driveline losses should not have changed, but they did. Still, 2.3% is impressive for a mere oil change. Here are some links if you wish to see some: http://performanceracingoils.com/dynofriction-ezp-9.html

That said, as oils are getting thinner and thinner, boundary conditions are actually showing up in the bottom end, a bit surprisingly to me, but that's what is being seen* (see bottom of post for elaboration).

Having said all of that, we know from testing the oil, primarily the 4 ball wear test, that the NT cuts wear pretty drastically, ceteris paribus. We are hoping over the course of the year to compare the capabilities of a lower weight NT oil with a higher weight non-NT oil, to see if we can provide equivalent protection with a lower weight oil. If we can do that, we know that we can reduce total FMEP by an even greater amount, as we'll be reducing viscous friction, as well.

Alternety, I don't have the pricing finalized. I got the pricing from Millers just yesterday, and am sorting through it. It looks to be about 7% more expensive than the non-NT version of the oil. It is still not cheap, but this is the extended drain stuff we are talking about, rather than a regular oil. Right now, looks like somewhere between $13-15 per liter, depending on which version. 5L jugs will be notably less on a per liter basis.

Road oils are made to meet OEM specifications, which
 
Sorry, I inadvertantly hit the Submit button before I was ready. Here's the full text (is there a way to edit or delete a post?)

Mystic - Millers does indeed use nanotechnology in their engine oils. Will not elaborate on the chemical specifics of it beyond that.

Real quick:
IMEP - Indicated Mean Effective Pressure, which is how much torque the engine makes before mechanical losses (normalized - i.e. not a function of displacement)
FMEP - Fricton Mean Effective Pressure, said mechanical losses
BMEP - Brake Mean Effective Pressure, IMEP - FMEP. Multiplied by displacement, and you get brake torque.

The technology has reduced the coefficient of friction in the neighborhood of 50%, give or take a fair amount (range 30% to upper 60's, off of memory). The benefit it provides is primarily in boundary lubrication. That primarily is near TDS and BDC in the swept area of the rings. If you figure FMEP of an engine is about 15% IMEP, and ring friction is 40% of that, then you are looking at 6%, max. But, it does not take long before you start getting out of boundary, and into viscous, at which point the coefficient of friction doens't do much for you.

So how does this impact fuel economy? To date, we do not have enough direct data. A few Sequence Six tests have been performed, and it is largely dependent on drive cycle (frictional losses are a constant, so at low load, they are a large portion of indicated power). I know the results, but the sample size is too small to publish with any confidence. That said, we are awaiting the impending release of fleet oils with NT. If we can make an improvement of merely 1%, the case for conversion to the NT oils is very, very strong at first glance - this for a financial incentive for only the fuel economy improvement. We are hoping to have some discussions in the near future with some fleet operators to get some level of validity around our assumptions of operating costs. A 5% improvement in fuel economy would be enormous, but it isn't realistic. OEM's would pay BIG time money for that kind of fuel economy improvement (see below for some more info).

Another reason to look at fleets is the rebuild interval. Like racing, rebuilds are a source of expense. On the gear oils, some of the WRC and BTCC guys are seeing as much as four times the life of the gearbox. Our typical wear reductions are 40-50%, with some as high as 80%, and a low of 14%. This again compared to the closest comparator from Millers (i.e. a BMW LL04 spec 5W30, and not just viscosity). This will likely not apply to anyone here, but it is all related. Less friction, less heat, less waste (fuel), and less wear.

Though we don't have a large enough dataset to quantify an expected fuel economy gain, the horsepower improvements that have been measured are pretty darn impressive. And since the same mechanisms apply, we do have confidence that a measurable improvement in fuel economy will be realized. Most testing has shown a 2-3% improvement in power, with a range of about 1% to 5%, but I personally question the assumptions made when that 5% was measured (measured wheel power improvement was 2.3%, which I trust). Basically, they attempt to measure driveline losses by cutting fuel and letting the dyno wind down while taking measurements. Those driveline losses should not have changed, but they did. Still, 2.3% is impressive for a mere oil change. Here are some links if you wish to see some: http://performanceracingoils.com/dynofriction-ezp-9.html

That said, as oils are getting thinner and thinner, boundary conditions are actually showing up in the bottom end, a bit surprisingly to me, but that's what is being seen* (see bottom of post for elaboration).

Having said all of that, we know from testing the oil, primarily the 4 ball wear test, that the NT cuts wear pretty drastically, ceteris paribus. We are hoping over the course of the year to compare the capabilities of a lower weight NT oil with a higher weight non-NT oil, to see if we can provide equivalent protection with a lower weight oil. If we can do that, we know that we can reduce total FMEP by an even greater amount, as we'll be reducing viscous friction, as well.

Alternety, I don't have the pricing finalized. I got the pricing from Millers just yesterday, and am sorting through it. It looks to be about 7% more expensive than the non-NT version of the oil. It is still not cheap, but this is the extended drain stuff we are talking about, rather than a regular oil. Right now, looks like somewhere between $13-15 per liter, depending on which version. 5L jugs will be notably less on a per liter basis.

I need to verify the base stocks of the road oils. I thought that they were Group III, per OEM specifications, but I just reviewed my notes, and I do not know if that applies to this line (it does our Trident line, which to this point has been the only road oil line we've carried - but these are modified XF oils, which are more expensive). The race oils are mostly Group IV with a fair amout of V (tri-ester), and the balance III to enhance lubricity that is lost with the PAO.

* - I used to do engine development with Ford. I did engine systems, which was the whole thing, including budget and timing, as well as the engineering. My primary focus on the engineering end was performance, which was more upper end/breathing. But, one of my good friends and most trusted resources is still one of the experts at Ford in bottom end lubrication. He was where I heard that boundary conditions are being seen on the bottom end. Also along those lines, fuel economy was even more important than horsepower during my later years, and the amount of money paid for a small fuel economy gain at the OEM level was insane. I saw an increase of 30% of the cost of an engine to achieve about a 3% fuel economy improvement. When I left, I was one of the few big proponents of direct injection, which is one of the few things that can get a couple percentage poitns - everthing else short of full blown powertrain changes was in the tenths of a percent.

I'll see if I can get some pricing information together in the coming week or so.
 
Originally Posted By: 67King
Sorry, I inadvertantly hit the Submit button before I was ready. Here's the full text (is there a way to edit or delete a post?)

After you make a post there is an [Edit] button available for a period of time.



(right down here beside the [Reply] button) -->
 
Last edited:
Well, this technology is finally finding its way into motor oils. I heard about this nanotechnology a long time ago and I wondered when and if it would ever really be used in motor oils.

It would probably be useful in other things too like guns.
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Well, this technology is finally finding its way into motor oils. I heard about this nanotechnology a long time ago and I wondered when and if it would ever really be used in motor oils.

It would probably be useful in other things too like guns.


I use Tungsten Disulfide and sometimes Moly powder, both nano particles to tumble bullets. It reduces barrel temps, allows to shoot longer strings without fouling, extends throat and barrel life. IIRC it reduces friction so much so that you actually have to slightly increase the powder charge of the coated bullet to get the same velocity from an un-coated bullet of the same caliber and weight. Like everything else in life there are people for and against it. I tried it, I'm hooked.

It actually burnishes itself into the barrel and is very difficult to remove, if not impossible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top